Visual Style over Substance?

There are many traditional highly stylized forms for art to take. But to begin with these forms are very old, and have evolved slowly over time, and is what gives them both their legitimacy and allows their audience to appreciate them (literacy.) And to end with, anything can be adapted into these forms, so on some level they are unimportant, and perhaps what matters more is whether a particular audience will be able to appreciate them or not.

I like an understated visual style myself. This is so there is no possibility that style washes out what is communicated.

I read of hundreds of new games every year. I don't really feel like toiling with any of them. I think the main reason why is video games tend to treat novel visual styling as a gimmick, a way to get you to look at them. In theory we are supposed to celebrate this exploration of possibilities, but to me I feel like this is stealing the focus away from where it belongs, which I believe is the message, or the juxtaposition and composition of ideas (for me it goes cleverness, synthesis, everything else.)

Agree. Looks are hurting this medium.Disagree. Games should be loud and proud.

PS: I don't mean focusing on visuals. I mean if every single movie used a different kind of graphic to sell itself, would we still take them seriously? If you want to show off novel graphical effects, that's what the old demo scene was all about. I feel like "indie games" are more guilty of this than anything else. And I feel pretty strongly about this, so I want to post it up here where people might read it and think about it. Perhaps this boils down to selling products with screenshots, and in a way proves the entire enterprise is wall-to-wall devoid of real substance; perhaps even doomed on some level.